ASVMEB Order 22061 MATTHEW REED, DVM

BEFORE THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL
EXAMINING BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:

MATTHEW REED, DVM
HOLDER OF LICENSE No. 7280

CASE No. 22-61

FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND ORDER

FOR THE PRACTICE OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA,

RESPONDENT.

VeeVeVeVeVeVeVvw

The Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board (“Board”)
considered this matter at its public meeting on July 20, 2022. Matthew Reed,
DVM ("Respondent") appeared on his own behalf for an Informal Interview and
was represented by attorney, David Stoll, that was held pursuant to the
authority vested in the Board by A.R.S. § 32-2234(A). After due consideration of
the evidence, the arguments and the applicable law, the Board voted to issue
the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (“Order").

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the holder of License No. 7280 and is therefore authorized
to practice the profession of veterinary medicine in the State of Arizona.

2. On October 19, 2021, “Echo,” a 6 year-old female Shih Tzu was presented
to Respondent to have a cyst near the tail evaluated. Respondent stated that
the initial plan was to clip and clean the area, prescribe antibiotics and allow it
to heal on its own. However, after shaving the area, Respondent noted the cyst
was ruptured. He discussed his findings with Complainant and explained that
this could be a recurring issue. If was recommended the dog be sedated and

the cyst removed, Complainant agreed.

22-61, Matthew Reed, DVM

Bp

24

25

3. Complainant completed the hospitalization and sedation consent forms.
Pre-surgical blood work and IV catheter and fluids were declined on the form.
Complainant contended that he did not decline either the pre-surgical blood
work or the IV catheter placement.

4, The dog was sedated with dexmedetomidine and buprenorphine.
Respondent stated that while preparing the dog for surgery, the dog was trying
to move around on the surgery table therefore propofol was administered
intravenously. No IV catheter was placed nor was the dog intubated for the
procedure.

5. An elliptical incision was made around the cyst. A radio-surgical unit —
cyst was removed from the underlying tissue using metzenbaum scissors —
incision was closed. The dog was administered Rimadyl 0.35mL SQ. While
moving the dog into recovery, Respondent was not able to auscult a heartbeat
nor was the dog breathing. CPR was started. An IV catheter was unable to be
placed; the dog was intubated and a dose of epinephrine was given via the
endotracheal tube. CPR efforts were unsuccessful and the dog passed away.

6. A necropsy was performed and did not reveal any underlying disease
processes that may have predisposed the dog to death other than noting
breed specific changes related to the upper respiratory changes that may
have increased the risk of hypoventilation or resistance to ventilation. The dog
was brachycephalic with stenotic nares, had unilateral everted laryngeal
saccules, and diffuse dorsoventral flattening of the trachea.

7. Respondent suspected the dog had a reaction to the anesthesia. When
the results of the necropsy returned, he attempted to call Complainant multiple

times — his calls were not returned.

22-61, Matthew Reed, DVM

ny

24

25

8. Because the dog was a high risk brachycephalic breed, the Board
concluded that Respondent's conduct fell below the standard of care when
he failed to intubate the dog while sedated for a surgical procedure.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

9. The conduct and circumstances described in the Findings of Fact above,
constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-2232 (11) Gross negligence: failure to
intubate a brachycephalic pet while sedated for a surgical procedure.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is
ORDERED that Respondent's License, No. 7280 be placed on PROBATION for a
period of one year, subject to the following terms and conditions that shall be
completed within the Probationary period. These requirements include six (6)
total hours of continuing education (CE) detailed below:

], IT IS ORDERED THAT Respondent shall provide written proof satisfactory to
the Board that he has completed three (3) hours of continuing education (CE);
hours earned in compliance with this order shall not be used for licensure
renewal. Respondent shall satisfy these three (3) hours by attending CE in the
area of anesthesia, Respondent shall submit written verification of attendance
to the Board for approval.

2. IT IS ORDERED THAT Respondent shall provide written proof satisfactory to
the Board that he has completed three (3) hours of continuing education (CE);
hours earned in compliance with this order shall not be used for licensure
renewal. Respondent shall satisfy these three (3) hours by attending CE in the
area of brachycephalic disease syndrome. Respondent shall submit written

verification of attendance to the Board for approval.

22-61, Matthew Reed, DVM

w

24

25

3. All continuing education to be completed for this Order shall be pre-
approved by the Board. Respondent shall submit fo the Board a written outline
regarding how he plans to satisfy the requirements in paragraph | and 2 for its
approval within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Order. The outline
shall include CE course details including, name, provider, date(s), hours of CE to
be earned, and a brief course summary.

4. Respondent shall obey all federal, state and local laws/rules governing
the practice of veterinary medicine in this state.

5. Respondent shall bear all costs of complying with this Order.

6. This Order is conclusive evidence of the matters described and may be
considered by the Board in determining an appropriate sanction in the event a
subsequent violation occurs. In the event Respondent violates any term of this
Order, the Board may, after opportunity for Informal Interview or Formal
Hearing, take any other appropriate disciplinary action authorized by law,
including suspension or revocation of Respondent's license.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS

Respondent is hereby notified that he has the right to request arrehearing
or review of the Order by filing a motion with the Board's Executive Director
within 30 days after service of this Order. Service of the Order is effective five
days after the date of mailing to Respondent. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.09. The
motion must set forth legally sufficient reasons for granting a rehearing or
review. A.A.C. R3-11-904. If a motion for rehearing or review is not filed, the
Board's Order becomes final 35 days after if is mailed to Respondent.
Respondent is further notified that failure to file a motion for rehearing or review
has the effect of prohibiting judicial review of the Order, according to A.R.S. §

41-1092.09(B) and A.R.S. § 12-904, et seq.

22-61, Matthew Reed, DVM

oD

Dated this zqt day of Buguat , 2022.

Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board
Jessica Creager, Chairperson

By: oe Vor

Victoria Whitmore, Executive Director

Original of the foregoing filed this 24 _ day of Quyat , 2022
with the:

Arizona State Veterinary
Medical Examining Board
1740 W. Adams St., Ste. 4600
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Copy of the foregoing sent by certified, return receipt mail
this day of Lutusat 2022 to:

Matthew Reed, DVM
Address on file
Respondent

Copy of the foregoing sent by regular mail
this_Z@" day of Ceequot , 2022 to:

David Stoll, Esq.

Beaugureau, Hancock, Stoll and Schwartz, PC
302 E. Coronado Rd

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

By: YW Veta

Board Staff

22-61, Matthew Reed, DVM

wo